(seq. 21)

[faded postmark] 25
[LANCAR].P] PAID
ORC
7
Stephen Elliot Esq {Esquire}
at
Beaufort
S. Carolina
franco

Lancaster Oct. 5, 1812

Dear Sir

Your letter of August last is now before me and when I see the date
and time of receiving it I must confess that I have transgressed an
old rule "answer immediately whilst you are warm from the con-
tents of a letter" I see that times have a great effect on corre-
spondence and wars affect science. However we must redeem our time.

M. Kin has returned safe to our parts, he is a curious but I think
very honest and industrious man, who has done much for botany. I
have seen his large herbarium more than once and have corrected his
names to the best of my knowledge but he can not remember a name well
and spells so unaccountably bad that I am uncertain whether I would
know his names again. He is apt to raise the variety to a different
species which is a common thing with seeds and nursery men. If I mistake
not his Quercus adversa is is var. alba, cucullata is coccincea
var. suberoides is heterophylla Mich. fil, angustifolia Phellos a, Vaccinium ligu-
strinum in his herb. is resinosum Ait. Hydrophyllum hirtum Muhl. is appendiculatum
Mich. Hibiscus philadelphicus is moscheutos — Akalea I did not see in his herbar.

Your remarks on your last packet were very pleasing [ 391. Utricularia
cornuta I am still in doubt whether it is not the real cornuta.
407 the E. [Euphorbia] maculata L. is not in his herbarium and will remain doubtfull.
The Cyperi are to me very difficult.
n. 6. in my packet is the real [Cyperus] phymatodes Willd. MS. Smith took it for [Cyperus] esculentus
if the roots were tuberous, they are, but I think the esculentus is distinct.
it can not be strigosus L. Your 81 I think is the same and 473
n. 7 in my packet is strigosus L. secundum Schreber or Willdenow rad 4.
Your 452 and 474 is my erythorrhizos ☉, this I take for strigosus Mich. hardly L.
though Swarz returned it to me for strigosus and left my n. 7. without a name.
When shall we be certain? Your 274 is a Juncus not a Cyperus, probably a
transposition in the collection (474)
Willdenow's Filices contain a small volume, whether any other volume has been
published since I know not. He is rather slow. As he has been at Paris we
may expect to have Michaux explained by Willdenow.
In looking over the catalogue of your packets I find a few observations and
queries added
n. 7 grows all along our seashore and is caroliniana Mich. Salsota — I find in my garden that folia cantina are decidua, bractea ternae,
n. 31. Paspalus lentifer Flügge secundum Swarz
32. Paspalum floridanum Swarz
52. Boerhavia erecta Swarz
71. A very similar plant now living in my garden from the Mississippi Sesbania
picta affin. cor. lat.
97. Schoenus longirostris Swarz. Rhynchospora laxa Vahl.
104. Atriplex halimus L
112 Mariscus NS. Swarz
309. Platanus occidentalis planta junior

Amongst the Cryptogamia
1. 2. no Conferva but rather corallina
3 — 6. Conferva
8.9.10. Fucus 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19—21. Conferva 22. Fucus 23. 24 Conferva 25— 27 Ulva
28—31. Conferva.
32. Phascum flexuosum Swarz
36. Weissia tortilis Sw. 58. 59. Fumaria patens Swarz 69. Hypnum subsimplex Hedwig
72. Leskia adnata Michaux, 70 71. Hypnum micans Swarz, 135. Neckera heteromalla ]

D. Baldwin sent me a great number of mosses and lichens. I sent him a
full answer in June and numbered the plants as well as I could. He has re-
turned me no answer whatever which is very unusual to the Doctor. Is he too
much engaged or have letters miscarried? I have laid by his collections
untill I hear again from him. Of mosses there were hardly any but what
you sent or what I had before, of Lichenes a few distinct expecially a sticta
nearly allied to crocata.